Cheney the flip-flopper?

[punchdrunk]

an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer :

Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 4

 

[fishbob]

Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory.

Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years.

I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

 

[varwoche]

I'm curious to see if Edwards cites this statement Tues eve.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm curious to see if Edwards cites this statement Tues eve.

I'd love to see someone in Kerry/Edwards come out and attack on this one. As soon as anything is mentioned about "changing positions" they just need to come out and say "We're tired of hearing accusations of having changing positions from Bush/Cheney, who have demonstrated time and again that they will change when the wind blows." Then use a couple of examples, including Bush's "the war on terror is winable, not winable, winable" stuff, his ever changing gay marriage opinion, and Cheney's view on what to do about Iraq. Close it up with something like, "We recognize that opinions can change, especially as years pass. If our positions have changed, we are not alone in that regard, as our opponents views have been just as maleable. Lets get back to issues."

Subsequent attacks based on flip-flops are just going to bring home the point that they don't have anything else to say, and are only going to bring down more critical evaluation upon themselves. If it's in a debate, and I'm Kerry/Edwards, I laugh it off with "There you go again..." (oh wait, that's Ronnie)

 

[Tex]

Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory.

Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years.

I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

Well, he didn't join up with Halliburton until 1995.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, he didn't join up with Halliburton until 1995.

Seriously?

That's funny.

 

[Tex]

Seriously?

That's funny.

Yep. Here's a biographical timeline for anyone who's interested.

 

[dsm]

Hmmm - Cheney as a yes-man for Bush 1 and Bush 2. Of course this characterization throws a monkey-wrench at my 'Cheney, the evil puppeteer behind GW Bush' theory.

Not really. He might've been the puppeteer behind both Bush presidencies. He just might've flip-flopped in the intervening years.

Maybe Cheney figured out a way to profit from Iraq in the intervening 12 years.

Can you say, "Halliburton"?

I find nothing admirable about the man. Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

The funny thing is I seem to remember these statements at that time, so I'm perplexed why they were not brought out sooner...

 

[Dorian Gray]

Except that his 1992 analysis was remarkably well thought out for 2004.

That's the "wrong time" part of Kerry's stump.

 

[SezMe]

an article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer :

Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.

Cheney spoke to the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE!! Bush gets his science policy from Jesus and Cheney from Bruce Chapman. No hope.

 

[AWPrime]

Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush

Rove = the real puppeteer

 

[pgwenthold]

Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush

Rove = the real puppeteer

What ever happened to Colin Powell? We haven't heard a peep from him since I don't know when.

 

[AWPrime]

OOoooo the other puppet.

 

[peptoabysmal]

It seemed like a good idea at the time. I wonder if they could have forseen the next 12 years of Saddam laughing at them and the UN, if they would have made a different decision. Personally, I think the decision to not take out Saddam at the timeof Gulf War I cost Bush senior the re-election, not the economy.

 

[Patrick]

This is a stupid charge. The difference between 1992 and 2004 is like night and day. There's a time dimension to everything.

 

[gnome]

This is a stupid charge. The difference between 1992 and 2004 is like night and day. There's a time dimension to everything.

Mind if I use that the next time someone complains about a change of opinion in Kerry over a period of decades?

 

[Crossbow]

Cheney = expendable bulletproof vest for bush

Rove = the real puppeteer

I know that Rove is very important, but after seeing the VP debate last night, I think that Cheney is the puppeteer.

Did anyone else notice how Cheney never really mentioned Bush at all? I was rather reminded of the Wizard of Oz:

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTIANS!